ECOLEC-03211; No of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS XX (2008) XXX– XXX available at www.sciencedirect.com www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal Miguel A. Guala,⁎, Richard B. Norgaardb aDepartment of Economics, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Crtra. Utrera, Km 1, 41013, Sevilla, Spain bEnergy and Resources Program, 310 Barrows Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3050, United States ARTICLE DATA ABSTRACT Article history: Social and Natural sciences have, for the most part, ignored the existence of interlinked/ Received 25 March 2008 interdependent evolutionary processes between cultural and biotic systems, both Received in revised form 19 July 2008 embedded in an overall dynamic biophysical environment. In this paper, we explore the Accepted 23 July 2008 potential of filling this gap by further developing a common coevolutionary framework based on earlier work in ecological economics. Our main concern is to contribute to the understanding of socioecological coevolution in two ways: (1) to find a general framework Keywords: that accommodates advances in the explanation of sociocultural evolution in social Coevolution sciences and, (2) to identify the specific mechanisms that could link this knowledge to what Cultural evolution is known in the biological sciences. Biological evolution © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Systemic influence “… this traditional dichotomy of humanity-versus-nature equivalent of a Darwin nor a Mendel, however, the social is false and dangerous. On the one hand, it perpetuates our science literature on the coevolution of components of social destructive mishandling of the biosphere. On the other systems is noticeably less developed and far less cohesive hand, it scants the self-understanding that Homo sapiens than the biological literature. The social sciences have needs to settle down on our home planet, hence as a struggled with multiple, incompatible constructs. Neither prerequisite to survival. Nature, to put the matter as the biological nor social science literature, however, helps us succinctly as possible, is part of us, and we are part of understand how: (1) evolving sociocultural systems are nature.” E.O. Wilson (2007: xiii) increasingly affecting their biophysical environment nor (2) how evolving ecological systems are increasingly affecting sociocultural change. The challenge to understanding socio- 1. Introduction ecological coevolution is thus two fold: (1) to find a general framework that accommodates advances in the explanation Socioecological systems (Folke et al., 2005) can be thought of as of socio-cultural evolution in social sciences and, (2) to changing through coevolution between their social and identify the specific mechanisms that could link this knowl- ecological components (Norgaard, 1994). Yet, while this can edge to what is accepted in the biological sciences. be understood intuitively, theory and empirical analyses Evolution is a process of change over time and space. For remain undeveloped. There is a well-developed, cohesive living systems, Darwin (1859) characterized it as a matter of biological literature on the coevolution of species within descent with modification. In biology, the process of genetic ecological systems. Coevolution at other levels and scales is inheritance among individuals across generations driven by admittedly more controversial. With neither the social science natural selection has been emphasized. Here “natural” refers ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.A. Gual). 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020 Please cite this article as: Gual, M.A., Norgaard, R.B., Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal, Ecological Economics (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020 ARTICLE IN PRESS 2 ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS XX (2008) XXX– XXX to the biophysical environment surrounding a particular generation to the next” (Pagel, 2002: 330). Some change occurs species. Biologists have traditionally focused on evolution in through random mutations and drift, some through differ- more or less undisturbed environments. There are two very ential migration of individuals, and some through what important reasons for this: (1) human culture did not come Darwin called natural selection. The distinction in evolution- into play until very recently and, (2) people have greatly ary biology between evolution and evolution by natural modified the environment and thereby the course of biological selection arose through the grand synthesis in mid 20th evolution. So, if the basic question — How did life evolve on century between biology and genetics (Mayr, 1982). earth? — is central, it follows that natural undisturbed One of the main problems within evolutionary biology is environments are a precious resource to answer that question agreeing on the plausibility and importance of selection at (Thompson, 1994). While restricting the “environment” to different levels. While evolution at the level of the individual “natural” systems helps biologists understand important organism is completely accepted and empirically documented evolutionary processes, it also blinds evolutionary biology to (though perhaps conflated with evolution at other levels), the increasingly relevant processes of evolution in the context arguments for evolution at other levels are more contentious, of human action. To understand our biological future, we need while the difficulties of empirically sorting out levels of to understand how human culture is affecting both, the course evolution is more difficult. The levels range from the gene and the laws of evolution. Of course, some biologists are (Dawkins, 1976), the group and the importance of social beginning to address this, but the overall effort is still very low. interactions (Wilson, 1998), and the species within geographi- In the social sciences, efforts to understand evolution cal landscapes or in macroevolutionary terms (Thompson, within cultural systems have been, and still are, a quite 2002; Gould, 2002). complicated inquiry. On top of this, bridging the gap between Coevolution has been largely characterized as a reciprocal the understanding of human evolution in a biological sense evolutionary process between interacting species driven by and human evolution in a cultural sense continues to be natural selection (Thompson, 2002). At its narrowest concep- difficult and to generate controversy. tion, it refers to the specific, reciprocal, simultaneous evo- As the evolution of cultural systems seems to accelerate its lution of traits between two closely related species. The destructive influence on our planet, there is a clear need to loosening of one or some of these requirements provides unveil the links between the units, the systems and the degrees of flexibility in the definition while confounding the processes of cultural and biological evolution. Knowledge of difficulties of empirically sorting out the processes. At a them could provide us with important — not to say vital — broader level, coevolution might be defined as diffuse coevolu- clues on how to change social institutions and technologies in tion, meaning the adaptation of species to multiple features of accordance with, not only more ecologically driven ethics, but their biotic and physical environment (Futuyma and Slatkin, the long term interest of our species. In summary, we urgently 1983). Coevolution is important because it links evolutionary need to understand the coevolutionary character of culture biology to ecology. It opens evolutionary theory to the and nature and incorporate it into our technology and social identification of more precise selective relationships among organization. This particular issue is at the heart of this paper. species in evolutionary explanations, however, it also opens Unfortunately, it is also at the core of most conflicts that our understanding of evolution to a rich interactive complex of divide the natural and social sciences. Thus, the main goal of processes that vary across landscapes, making distinctions this article is to propose an overarching coevolutionary between the selective processes more difficult. framework capable of both: (1) bridging the theoretical gaps Another dispute shaping modern evolutionary theory has between the biological and social sciences, and (2) contribut- been the need to explain punctuated equilibria and rapid ing to the understanding of the biophysical impacts of cultural change at the species level (Gould, 1992). This is interlinked systems through the study of the relevant units and forces with the distinction between Microevolution (as explained by operating between two on going coevolutionary processes: Darwin) and Macroevolution (compatible with Darwinian cultural evolution and biological evolution. evolution). Macroevolution ideas have widened a huge area We provide a short review of the major issues concerning of collaboration between evolutionary biology and other evolutionary theory in the biological and social sciences in physical sciences. This is of particular relevance because the Section 2. Then, in Section 3, we critically analyze the Darwinian theory of evolution is now being placed within the development of coevolutionary thought in ecological econom- context of new findings that improve our understanding of ics. In Section 4, we propose a basic common coevolutionary the relationship